Simple question?

Quote: Evenbob

Your church is an advertisement
for the appeal atheism.

The major flaws I see in your argument are twofold. First of all does a study in American History lead you to renounce your citizenship? I hope not. Does memory of your past mistakes as a younger man cause you to feel you are worthless today? I really hope not.

Secondly, it does not follow that because someone acts immoral their teachings are wrong, unless of course their teachings lead them to be immoral. The teachings of Jesus Christ obviously do not lead to immorality. The Church's history does nothing to show that its teachings are wrong, only that it is comprised of sinful people (also great and holy saints too, don't forget!). Your argument would is equivalent to the argument that just because a lot of people believe it means that it is true. We have all agreed that this is not the case. The rightness or wrongness of an institution cannot be judged solely based on its past behavior.

Quote: FrGamble

The major flaws I see in your argument .

The flaw in your argument is glaring. You
refuse to see that your Church claims to
be the one and only true conduit on earth
to the one and only true god. Therefore,
we expect you to be a few cuts above the
average dumbass on the street. And your
history shows you're just as bad, if not worse,
than the average organization. This takes
away from your credibility immensely.

Quote: Nareed

What pride? They were acting out of love. Love corrects, does it not? What's better, to kill someone or to let them go to hell?

Correcting is a part of love, but not burning at the stake. This is like giving a pass to the running back who beat his son with a switch because of some mistake. It is okay to correct out of love but not to correct in a way not commiserate to the crime. Now of course this is complicated in history because heresy was considered treason to not just the Church but to the State during that time. Just like today treason is punishable by death it was the state that largely committed the capital punishment. In fact during the Inquisition the Church did not have the authority to kill anyone.

Quote:

1) A parent has a moral and legal right, and obligation, to instruct and discipline their children. You have no right to interfere with my life.

That is true. Only if you were a member of the family would I have a moral and legal right to discipline you.

Quote:

2) The church has neither the moral nor the legal right to impose its will on anyone. When it is given the legal prerogative to do so, what we get is oppression.

It does not have the legal right to impose its will, but it does has the moral obligation to share and strive to convince anyone of its teaching.

Quote:

3) You have no evidence for your moral position, nor any proof. It's the height of irresponsibility to think you are in a position to offer corrections to others, and the height of arrogance to think you can force your corrections on other people. You know, like preventing some people form civil marriage, or determining the use of their own bodies. This is what leads to wars by the Catholics to stamp out Protestantism, and by the Protestants to stamp out Catholicism.

I think there is evidence for my moral position concerning the sexual activity of homosexuals. However you will note that in regards to civil marriage the Church does not in any way desire to prevent some people from receiving the rights that make sense for those who live in a committed relationship. It is not marriage, but it can be legally recognized as a civil union or something similar. In regards to how people use their own bodies the Church can only strive to influence people and the laws so that other people like an unborn child are not harmed or killed by how they desire to use their own bodies. I agree that in every case the use of words and arguments is always a better and more effective weapon than causing anyone harm. Truth will out if it can be shown and people are open to hearing it.

Quote: Evenbob

The flaw in your argument is glaring. You
refuse to see that your Church claims to
be the one and only true conduit on earth
to the one and only true god. Therefore,
we expect you to be a few cuts above the
average dumbass on the street. And your
history shows you're just as bad, if not worse,
than the average organization. This takes
away from your credibility immensely.

How many times will you waffle on this issue? You seem to use contradictory language when it will best suit you. Evenbob for president! Seriously, the Church is more than a few cuts above the average institution or country on the street. History shows this. I'm sorry, I truly am, that we are not perfect, it would make this argument much easier. I'm also sorry that I am not perfect or that you are not either but this does not make what the Church, I, or you say not credible.

Faith is not without evidence and it is surely not without reason. Faith and reason are like two wings of a bird that allow us as human beings to soar to new heights. If you have one without the other you won't get off the ground and you will just go in circles. Your earlier quotes about faith are cute but they are not correct at all.

Quote: FrGamble

History shows this. I'm sorry, I truly am, that we are not perfect.

Nobody expects perfection. What we do expect
is for the Church to set an example. Throughout
your history we've seen the same amount of greed,
underhanded tactics, arrogance, manipulation,
civil rights violations, prejudice, misogyny, and
pig headedness, that we see with any non
religious organization. You would think that the
Church would try a little harder and at least
pretend a real god is in charge a little more.

This is just not true and you know it and if you don't you should read up on your history.

Quote: FrGamble

Correcting is a part of love, but not burning at the stake.

You could have fooled me.

Quote:

This is like giving a pass to the running back who beat his son with a switch because of some mistake.

He claimed he used the same methods his parents used on him. Likewise the church could point to its father, Jehovah, who drowned people, subjected them to plagues, murdered them outright, etc.

You're right about the Football player, though. because we know now that abuse in children tends to beget adults who will abuse children, as he so amply demonstrated.

Quote:

Just like today treason is punishable by death it was the state that largely committed the capital punishment. In fact during the Inquisition the Church did not have the authority to kill anyone.

That's a cop-out, The church was involved in the whole process. How many of the people who actually committed the heinous acts were excommunicated? Were any?

Quote:

I think there is evidence for my moral position concerning the sexual activity of homosexuals.

Quite the contrary.

It is difficult to claim that the teaching of christ is immoral, when the teaching of christ is the basis of the morality that you are comparing his teaching to.

However, people have tried.
https://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/the-immorality-of-christ/

That one has a collection of Jesus quotes encouraging people (men, I assume) to leave their families and follow him.

There is this, too:

Quote:

In Revelation 2:22-23, for a woman whose crime it was to have eaten food that was meant as a sacrifice, and to believe in something other than Jesus, Christ says: “22 Indeed I will cast her (Jezebel) into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.
23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you
according to your works.”

What does that mean?

It is also hard not to keep coming back to slavery, and the fact that Jesus and the bible does not denounce it. I'm talking about all kinds of slavery, which the church now finally and completely denounces. Where did they learn that? Not from Jesus. Remember too, that as punishment, people's CHILDREN could be forced into slavery, and if any women slaves had children, they too were automatically slaves. This was the common practice of the time, and when Jesus was alive, and among the strongest things he said against it were to not to beat your slaves too hard and too often, and advocated for the release of a single slave.

I just had to edit this. It was not Jesus advocating for the slave to be released, it was Paul.

Quote:

Cardinal Dulles points out that, "while discreetly suggesting that he manumit Onesimus, [Paul] does not say that Philemon is morally obliged to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had."[31] According to tradition, Philemon did free Onesimus, and both were eventually
recognized as saints by the Church. T. David Curp asserts that, "Given that the Church received Philemon as inspired Scripture, Paul's ambiguity effectively
blocked the early Fathers of the Church from denouncing slavery outright."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery

I can't be any more clear on this - Jesus and the bible did not condemn slavery, and that was used as justification for nearly two millennia of the continuation of the practice.

Quote: FrGamble

Faith is not without evidence and it is surely not without reason. Faith and reason are like two wings of a bird that allow us as human beings to soar to new heights. If you have one without the other you won't get off the ground and you will just go in circles. Your earlier quotes about faith are cute but they are not correct at all.

Faith is believing in something without proof.